In this thread, the premise of the OP is that Hillary lost because of "fake news" from Russia.

False.

Hillary lost because most Americans have enough critical thinking skills to refuse for President a candidate that engages in "pay to play",
mishandling classified information and lying to the FBI and Congress.

All news that are quite TRUE

NOTHING to do with Russia.

Things are so bad that major foreign governments are about to cut ties and/or contributions to the Clinton Foundation, Australia probably will be the
first to do so.

Several items helped Hillary's downfall. We knew she was a liar from her time at the law firm and the Nixon Watergate debacle . There was no debating
that one
1) The basket of deplorable remarks
2) The leaks of DNC and how they approached the Sander's candidacy
3) The DNC chair was terminated due to wrong-doings and Hillary hired her ( best clue of Hillary's morality)
4) A move from the issues to just "Hate Trump" speeches (Trump for the most part kept himself in control)
5) The absolute evidence from FBI director of mishandling of confidential emails , but a refusal to prosecute
This , and a bit more including questions on health , doomed her campaign. She knew it. That was when she changed tactics to the far left side and
just attacked the man and not the policies. Of course, Hillary did not show for the concession speech as she had to have time to contact her God-King
Soros for advice . Even though early on Soros had predicted a Trump win

originally posted by: visitedbythem
a reply to: reldra
Months ago I watched with dismay as Carrier told its employees that they were moving to Mexico, and all would lose their jobs. Evidently Trump is
already in talks with Carrier and it appears they will likely stay. Jobs will be saved.
The guy hasnt even taken office yet and he already doing the work that lame duck racial divider just cant seem to do

Link? Trump tried to say he was responsible for Ford not moving and Ford said they either never planned to or were just moving 1 division and Trump
had never spoken to them.

Im sorry Hon, I didnt know you were waitin on me. I thot you had google too

I like how they are refusing to admit to their own failures, and just throwing around random accusations.

The Democrats lost because they put up the worst and most pathetic candidate available, which was remarkable because there was a vastly better
option.

Then they proceeded to run a negative campaign revolving around racial and sexist nonsense, negative and often baseless attack ads, and bizarre
accusations of people being Russian agents. Coupled with a horrifically one-sided mainstream media narrative that totally destroyed it's
credibility.

Have they examined and learned from this failure? Nope. They're just doubling down on the same BS that cost them the Presidential Election.

They literally have no one to blame but themselves. There was no Russian conspiracy, non-MSM news are not necessarily "fake" (probably more reliable
than the MSM) and Donald Trump is not a Nazi Anti-Christ.

Did the Russian State want Trump to win? Well, of course they did. Since Hillary's reckless, dangerous and borderline genocidal foreign policy had the
potential of leading to a shooting war with Russia over Syria. Russia don't want a war with America. America should not be pushing for war with
Russia.

Headline:"Top US general warns Syrian 'no-fly' zone means war with Russia" www.wsws.org...

This article appeared in the rag for International Committee of the Fourth
International (ICFI) . If you hadn't gone there in a while, it's as communist
as pickled beet pot pies.

Essentially and if it's fake news, it flies right along with reality and in
tight formation. Because Hillary said she would enforce a no-fly zone
by shooting down Syrian and Russian fighters. Guess what THAT'd do?

The NeoCons, MIC and ultra left (Soros Inc) seem hell bent on the Big One.
And the fake news is about 'nothing to see here'.
Like your shepherds would prefer all your eyeballs burned out.

PS I didn't need the Russians in any role, the media, or anybody
else's opinion to choose who I preferred on The Button. That
was easy... I went with somebody who's not a proven drooling
warmonger and world-class psycho: forget the verbal gaffes.

edit on 25-11-2016 by derfreebie because: Two plus two is the cube root of sixty
four dollar question. Confusion

originally posted by: seasonal
Trolls, leaked emails, punish HRC and fostering a mistrust in US democracy was that the plan of Russia this election season?

Russia, this story contends, spread fake news to punish HRC.

The flood of “fake news” this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading
articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say
independent researchers who tracked the operation.

Can't tell if this attempt by Russia to punish HRC and help Trump was effective, but it did help make a mistrust in the US democracy.

There is no way to know whether the Russian campaign proved decisive in electing Trump, but researchers portray it as part of a broadly effective
strategy of sowing distrust in U.S. democracy and its leaders. The tactics included penetrating the computers of election officials in several states
and releasing troves of hacked emails that embarrassed Clinton in the final months of her campaign

Exactly witch "fake news articles" in particular if you could name just a few were so damming to HRC's campaign? Notice I didn't put the stipulation
of articles hacked from Russians.

Colostomy bag under suit, ear piece that didn't exist, hole in tongue that is not there, Chelsea's apartment building being a medical compound-which
is it is not, being fed questions and answers through an earpiece that doesn't exist, a flashlight turned into a diazepam pen, seizures that were not
seizures, teleprompter within podium....there's more.

They get worse and even people on ATS who I thought were intelligent were pushing this crap.

Well Im sorry to say but those were not the things that toppled the Clinton campaign.... the primary and her letting the DNC do paid riots had a lot
more impact.
Along with her and the campaign being two faced as well as the media, which was very clear in the wikileaks mails.

Australian governments of both political persuasions have paid more than $75 million in the past 10 years to arms of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea
Clinton Foundation that are now mired in controversy. The government has not made any formal donation to the Clinton Foundation, but since 2006 it has
entered into a series of partnerships with the foundation in which the American presidential candidate’s family outfit acted as a “technical
implementing partner” in the delivery of aid programs.

The government still has three active arrangements with the Clinton Health Access Initiative to deliver aid in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and
Vietnam.

Reports in US newspapers The Boston Globe and The Washington Post have accused CHAI of failing to adequately report to the US State Department its
revenues from foreign governments.

The question of the money the Clinton Foundation raises from foreign governments became a political issue in the US when Hillary Clinton became
secretary of state in 2009. It was agreed the Clinton Foundation would notify the State Department of any foreign donations or revenues. This was to
ensure there were no conflicts of interest with foreign governments seeking goodwill with the secretary of state by donating­ money to what was then
her husband’s foundation.

The Boston Globe alleges CHAI did not disclose all its foreign money to the department. It reporte­d that foreign government grants to CHAI had
doubled from $US26m in 2010 to $US56m in 2013. A Republican Party website identifies Australia as the single biggest foreign-­government source of
funds for the Clinton Foundation.

I commented along those lines way back, when Hilary's medical issues started becoming obvious.
All those $Millions paid to them via the Clinton Foundation, for favours post-election, have been wasted and I am guessing that some of those donors,
not being the most charitable sorts, will be wanting their money back!

I was shocked to find that the British Government had, cumulatively, "donated" around £50Million over a few years to the Clinton Foundation via it's
foreign aid programme. Given what we know of the very small percentage actually spent on what could be called charity or aid programmes via the CF, I
think a very serious investigation needs to be launched to look into this.
That was UK taxpayer money after all, being used in their favours and pay-to-play schemes.

Watching Channel 4 news (UK) last night, they were investigating the fake news stories and where they really came from.

Turned out not to be Russian at all but actually from a couple of villages in Macedonia. Most of the "news editors" turned out to be between 16-18 and
many studying computers. When tracked down, they seemed really embarrassed and were saying it was basically down to boredom rather than anything else.
It was actually quite funny watching them squirm on camera in that awkward teenage way when caught out!

Asking other locals about it and some were under the impression that the news was real (and weren't happy when told it was made up), whereas others
knew what the teenagers were up to.

They were basically making far more money making up news than they could otherwise. They were even asked why so much fake Clinton and Obama news (made
up negative news) and said it was because Americans were desperate for anything Trump related - their hits (and finances) went through the roof
everytime fake pro Trump anti Clinton news went up - they were quite open about this. If i find a link i will post it - it is quite an eye opener.

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
Anyone who doesn't think Russia helped trump win is blind heck in the election thread we saw two of the most vocal trump supporters on ats thank
Russia for its help.

There is no way to know whether the Russian campaign proved decisive in electing Trump, but researchers portray it as part of a broadly effective
strategy of sowing distrust in U.S. democracy and its leaders. The tactics included penetrating the computers of election officials in several states
and releasing troves of hacked emails that embarrassed Clinton in the final months of her campaign

First of all, the NSA and all that alphabet agencies were not able to protect the USA from those "russian attacks"?
Exactly the ones who created that stuff for hidden warfare. Couldn´t protect the POTUS elections...
What´s this for a gross evidence of incapacity by the big brothers?
And who would believe that?

But Superputin from Planet Russia seems able to do anything, even giving the USA some of it´s own medicine...
Would be nice, but it´s a bit "Kindergarten" how the involved POTUS candidates and their supporters act since the election campaign, in that
post-factual times we live in now. And since the results of that theatre to fool the people. This time the enraged and concerned people got fooled the
most.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.